Page 80 - Fruits from a Poisonous Tree

64 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree to be the
accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed.
The legal presumption that he is the accommodating party is strong enough
for the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for a tax on the thing he
actually owns.
Debtors may have the use of certain things, but the things belong to the
creditors. The creditor is the master. The debtor is the servant. The Uniform
Commercial Code is very specific about the duties and responsibilities a
debtor has. If the owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor because of
his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to have a difficult
time convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts
for him. In addition, the federal courts are staffed with loyal judges who will
look for every mistake the people make when trying to use their remedy and
use the mistake against them in dismissing any action they bring.
There is a very powerful tool the people can use to help them get to the
real issues when they find themselves up against the power of presumption.
The law provides for either party of an admiralty action to object to a line of
questioning. When you object in that court setting, you must tell the judge
why you object or he will overrule your objection. The reason is:
“This line of questioning assumes facts not in evidence.”
You can request that evidence of the Plaintiff’s claim be entered into
evidence. If the judge overrules this fundamental principle of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction and the right to make a charge, there is a major
procedural error in the proceeding. Your objection has preserved the error for
appeal. Granting in personam jurisdiction to get to the bottom of the issue is
vastly better than arguing, “I’m not that person.”
The owner of the thing, after learning the law and discovering who he is
in relation to the United States, can file a UCC 1 Financing Statement and
Security Agreement registering his interest in the artificial entity (PERSON)
the United States created after Mom applied for a birth certificate. That
was the act of registering her biological property, her baby (substance), with
the State. The United States holds the paper title (form), not the substance
(baby). Until your Financing Statement is filed, the United States is the
holder of the title to the artificial entity. Its name is spelled in all capital
letters – JOHN HENRY DOE. When John Henry Doe files the Financing
Statement supported by a Security Agreement signed by the artificial entity
(JOHN) and the owner (John), he becomes the holder in due course of the
title to JOHN. The UCC and the State commercial law are very specific
about the effect of a registered security interest. It has priority over most
other interest claimed (only claimed) in the same thing. The evidence that is
missing in the court is the registered claim over the person (JOHN).